REFUSED! DEADLINE: TUE 29 NOV 2022 Lichfield Drive BURY
Nov 17, 2022 22:40:21 GMT
Post by lavenderbee on Nov 17, 2022 22:40:21 GMT
REFUSED! DEADLINE: TUE 29 NOV 2022 - 69046 | Prior approval for proposed 5G telecoms installation comprising H3G 20m street pole and additional equipment cabinets | Footpath at Woodhill Road, opposite junction with Lichfield Drive, Bury, BL8 1BD
Go to the council website to object - planning.bury.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_BURY_DCAPR_60098
or email your comments (* Add 69046 + YOUR ADDRESS - in your email for the objection to be registered with the Council) to:
Case Officer: H.Pressley@bury.gov.uk, planningapp@bury.gov.uk
Cc Councillors: Bury West - Elton ward
Go to the council website to object - planning.bury.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_BURY_DCAPR_60098
or email your comments (* Add 69046 + YOUR ADDRESS - in your email for the objection to be registered with the Council) to:
Case Officer: H.Pressley@bury.gov.uk, planningapp@bury.gov.uk
Cc Councillors: Bury West - Elton ward
SUGGESTED OBJECTIONS: (Only 1000 characters allowed if you object online, so it may be best to send an email instead.)
In close proximity (within 500m) to Boomerang Children's Multi-sensory Play Centre - 189.04m, Woodbank Primary school - 295.16m, Bury West and North Childrens' centre - 326.47m, First Steps Day Nursery & Preschool - 463.06m.
Children are more vulnerable to microwave radiation than adults, see for example, Prof Tom Butler, "On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Non-Ionizing Radio-frequency Radiation" - www.radiationresearch.org/articles/on-the-clear-evidence-of-the-risks-to-children-from-non-ionizing-radio-frequency-radiation-the-case-of-digital-technologies-in-the-home-classroom-and-society/
The proposed antenna will be obtrusive, ugly and incongruous with the surrounding character, appearance, resulting in detriment to the visual amenities of the surrounding area, as well as a harmful impact to the outlook of residential properties nearby.
The 5G equipment would result in an imposing and overbearing impact on the amenity of the nearby area causing local residents unnecessary upset and anxiety, impacting the quality of the local area.
The mast may create a visual distraction to road users, and its associated equipment cabinets would clutter and degrade the look and feel of the area.
In close proximity to schools, residences and businesses, within 500m of the proposed site, which will be subjected to high levels of radiation beaming from this mast throughout the day and night. The impact of this proposal on the health (including mental health) and well-being of residents must be taken into account, and is a material planning consideration.
Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health, argues Professor John William Frank, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
The advent of 5G technology has been hailed by governments and certain vested interests as transformative, promising clear economic and lifestyle benefits, through massively boosting wireless and mobile connectivity at home, work, school and in the community, he says.
5G uses much higher frequency radio waves than in the past and it makes use of very new—and relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety—supportive technology to enable this higher data transmission capacity, points out Professor Frank. www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed-urges-expert/
Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/5g-era-mobile-network-cost-evolution/
Local authorities are expected to safeguard the quality of the local environment and some have a statutory duty to help conserve biodiversity and species protection as part of the planning process. Councillors are in a position to help preserve the natural environment for the benefit of future generations and to promote sustainability.
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G. - www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
WILDLIFE: Research shows that manmade RF radiation (RFR) may be seriously harmful to wildlife, including vital pollinators such as bees.
- www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720384461?dgcid=author
- www.emfdata.org/en/studies/detail&id=566
- www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/12/8/716?&ml_subscriber=1772077450675623693&ml_subscriber_hash=s0w7
Please see this list of studies regarding potential harm to wildlife compiled by the Environmental Health Trust, a US foundation run by the Nobel lead author and eminent environmental oncologist Dr Devra Davis - ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fieldsenvironment/
A field monitoring study spanning 9 years involving over 100 trees found trees sustained significantly more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna, leaving the entire tree system prone to degradation over time. - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133
The ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects, with more than one degree of temperature increase. By now, in several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been demonstrated to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards.
Criticism of ICNIRP by the Council of Europe: “Both the European Parliament (in its resolution 2008/2211(INI)) and the Council of Europe recommend lowering the exposure limits based on the ICNIRP opinions. The Council of Europe in its Opinion of 6 May 2011 on health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (12608):
• A group of scientists states that ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health - www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/
• PHE’s solicitors stated in 2019 that relevant parties should use their own discretion, based on available evidence, when making decisions regarding RFR. I am providing you with some of that evidence here.
• In 2020, the ICNIRP removed the ‘vulnerable groups’ section, which included children, from its guidance. Yet its 2002 guidelines stated that ‘vulnerable people, such as the sick, elderly and children, would need non-thermal limits below its heatings-only limits.’
EXCLUSION ZONE: "NO ENTRY" zones are missing from the plan. Every mast has an area around the antenna which should be marked with NO ENTRY signs due to the effects from the radiation.
NO RISK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE - A Risk Assessment needs to be made from a fully informed position, you will find if you weigh up all the evidence for biological harm, from 1000's of studies, that harm is caused at exposure levels down to at least 0.05 V/m, and compare that to the fact that the environmental levels and those within buildings from WiFi also exceed this low level by 100s of times.
The 5G equipment would result in an imposing and overbearing impact on the amenity of the nearby area causing local residents unnecessary upset and anxiety, impacting the quality of the local area.
The mast may create a visual distraction to road users, and its associated equipment cabinets would clutter and degrade the look and feel of the area.
In close proximity to schools, residences and businesses, within 500m of the proposed site, which will be subjected to high levels of radiation beaming from this mast throughout the day and night. The impact of this proposal on the health (including mental health) and well-being of residents must be taken into account, and is a material planning consideration.
Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health, argues Professor John William Frank, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
The advent of 5G technology has been hailed by governments and certain vested interests as transformative, promising clear economic and lifestyle benefits, through massively boosting wireless and mobile connectivity at home, work, school and in the community, he says.
5G uses much higher frequency radio waves than in the past and it makes use of very new—and relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety—supportive technology to enable this higher data transmission capacity, points out Professor Frank. www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed-urges-expert/
Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/5g-era-mobile-network-cost-evolution/
Local authorities are expected to safeguard the quality of the local environment and some have a statutory duty to help conserve biodiversity and species protection as part of the planning process. Councillors are in a position to help preserve the natural environment for the benefit of future generations and to promote sustainability.
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G. - www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
WILDLIFE: Research shows that manmade RF radiation (RFR) may be seriously harmful to wildlife, including vital pollinators such as bees.
- www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720384461?dgcid=author
- www.emfdata.org/en/studies/detail&id=566
- www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/12/8/716?&ml_subscriber=1772077450675623693&ml_subscriber_hash=s0w7
Please see this list of studies regarding potential harm to wildlife compiled by the Environmental Health Trust, a US foundation run by the Nobel lead author and eminent environmental oncologist Dr Devra Davis - ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fieldsenvironment/
A field monitoring study spanning 9 years involving over 100 trees found trees sustained significantly more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna, leaving the entire tree system prone to degradation over time. - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133
The ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects, with more than one degree of temperature increase. By now, in several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been demonstrated to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards.
Criticism of ICNIRP by the Council of Europe: “Both the European Parliament (in its resolution 2008/2211(INI)) and the Council of Europe recommend lowering the exposure limits based on the ICNIRP opinions. The Council of Europe in its Opinion of 6 May 2011 on health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (12608):
• A group of scientists states that ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health - www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/
• PHE’s solicitors stated in 2019 that relevant parties should use their own discretion, based on available evidence, when making decisions regarding RFR. I am providing you with some of that evidence here.
• In 2020, the ICNIRP removed the ‘vulnerable groups’ section, which included children, from its guidance. Yet its 2002 guidelines stated that ‘vulnerable people, such as the sick, elderly and children, would need non-thermal limits below its heatings-only limits.’
EXCLUSION ZONE: "NO ENTRY" zones are missing from the plan. Every mast has an area around the antenna which should be marked with NO ENTRY signs due to the effects from the radiation.
NO RISK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE - A Risk Assessment needs to be made from a fully informed position, you will find if you weigh up all the evidence for biological harm, from 1000's of studies, that harm is caused at exposure levels down to at least 0.05 V/m, and compare that to the fact that the environmental levels and those within buildings from WiFi also exceed this low level by 100s of times.